Its a scheme dreamt up by the very worst of TS crayonista without even a passing glance at a gradient profile. Other TS schemes are just as bad, rail planning appears to be done on a google earth view.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
St Andrews link - New Report for StARlink
- Thread starter PaxVobiscum
- Start date
- Status
Its a scheme dreamt up by the very worst of TS crayonista without even a passing glance at a gradient profile. Other TS schemes are just as bad, rail planning appears to be done on a google earth view.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I thought it was doable in around 1:45, which can be lived with with electric traction. Undoubtedly freight would need to go around, but there's very little.
overthewater
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 8,166
That Halbeath Rail bypass is going to cause trouble with the Halbeath Park N ride. There no point building a new station IF that ever appears.
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,224
Only if the capacity problem is at Waverley, and I'm not too sure that it is. I think the bigger problem right now is pathing over the bridge, and the only possible path may be one that is either too fast or slow for the needs of the extra service.
NR seem to think it's possible and they should know how to engineer a railway. It's included as a ££-£££ (£50m-£250m) scheme in the Route Study Appendices. It's included as a scheme for CP8 (2029-34) alongside other related schemes like the undefined Cowdenbeath tweaks and Thornton North Junction re-modelling. Some of the gradient concerns might also go away if it is built alongside a Cowdenbeath re-alignment. The current (and newer) route is on an embankment through the town while the disused (and original, pre-Glenfarg) route is in cutting. If the 'join' between the two lines is lower than the existing line as it follows the A92, then the gradients won't be as much of a problem.
At the moment the park and ride is a car park with a glorified bus shelter. I don't see a Halbeath station going ahead too quickly if the Queensferry Crossing programme means there'll be a bus lane all the way into Edinburgh.
47271
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2015
- Messages
- 2,983
The climb from Jn1 to Jn3 of the M90 is sharp - 300ft in less than three miles - and this is pretty much the line that the Halbeath route would have to take. I'm not at all convinced of how sensible this is.
Back on topic: St Andrews has absolutely no regeneration need so has little hope of any sort of political case. Here's an idea: if the town's economy is so overheated could they consider paying for it themselves?
Back on topic: St Andrews has absolutely no regeneration need so has little hope of any sort of political case. Here's an idea: if the town's economy is so overheated could they consider paying for it themselves?
I can't see St Andrews being reconnected to the network any time within the next 10-15 years unless there is a change in political will to do it.
I think the TS priority over the next couple of CPs will be upgrading the existing infrastructure and electrification of the main trunk routes, rather than reinstating or building new lines.
Who knows, maybe one day the entire Fife Coast railway will be reinstated complete with electrification. One can dream...
I think the TS priority over the next couple of CPs will be upgrading the existing infrastructure and electrification of the main trunk routes, rather than reinstating or building new lines.
Who knows, maybe one day the entire Fife Coast railway will be reinstated complete with electrification. One can dream...
Indeed. Social benefits will be a big factor in any Scottish re-opening and St Andrews will never score highly on that measure in comparison with competing schemes such as Levenmouth.
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,224
The gradient would be on the order of 1 in 40. That's not great, but it's no worse than Lickey or Cowlairs or the Devon Banks. It would only be passenger multiple units using the route and speeds would already be relatively low given the curves through North Queensferry. There isn't much of an alternative either to reducing journey times and increasing capacity unless you want to go around rebuilding long sections of the other routes.
Tata say the scheme could be built for £100m. Crucially, it would then covers its operational costs. That's unlike many other regeneration schemes, where continued government subsidy is accepted on the basis of the wider economic benefits it would cause. There would clearly be some economic benefit to North East Fife and Tayside from the scheme too. If so, then it's mostly a matter of finding £100m for a one time capital spend.
As I've been saying though the strong likelihood is that the scheme would only be considered as part of a wider Fife rail improvements package including the bypass line. This could significantly improve the business case for the spur, especially if a need is identified for extra semi-fast services for the region anyway, where St Andrews could just be a highly convenient terminus. It's then a toss-up of whether it's better to send this extra service over the bridge to Dundee, or have that 2tph shuttle from St Andrews go over instead.
overthewater
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 8,166
A glorified Bus shelter with 3 or 6 bus stance, heated waiting room with toilets, TV and vending machines. A Man enquire desk at all times buses operate.... Gloridled to what? compared to most of the train stations in fife which cold, unmaned and have no loos.
The problem is there is no business case. There would be no economic benefit to North East Fife, People in Cupar and the surrounding areas have links to trains, while people in East neuk would still have no proper access. Again it pointless to even have the Dundee to St Andrews on the case report since it would only match current travel time of the current bus service which operate more frequently.
That just leaves the Edinburgh - St Andews? There might be some demand, and the golf might help it? Uni? Will visitors use the service? If the town is bad for traffic maybe invest in Park N ride scheme around A91 first before spending £100m on short piece of track. How would it cover its cost? Its link like the borders railways people will still have access to other stations. Its a complete waste of money and the £100m could be spent on better stuff including more important train links.
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,224
Hardly the Sistine Chapel then. My point is that the facilities provided at Halbeath P&R would be straightforward to replace if the bypass line required it. No one would shed a tear about losing the building there and having it replaced by a state-of-the-art equivalent. The replacement would also be built before the old one is closed and demolished, so no one loses out. It's a far cry from some reopening or new line opening proposals which would require demolition of much more significant properties. Unless they're lucky enough to coincide with a redevelopment programme, it's somewhat difficult to justify knocking down a supermarket, school or hospital.
What the Tata steel found was that the operational costs of the line would be covered by an increase in ticket revenue. That's an important piece of information, because it means there would not be any additional government subsidy required for the line. It's not hard for a government to find £100m if they put their mind to it: the problem is that a lot of £100m schemes will then have a constant need for subsidy which can easily exceed the upfront capital cost over their lifetime. Sometimes there are schemes deemed worthwhile which do require this subsidy, and when that happens the government justifies it through other economic benefits.
It is ridiculous to say that there would be no economic benefit to North East Fife at all. Firstly, the St Andrews service would most likely act as a North East Fife semi-fast calling at least at Edinburgh Gateway, Ladybank and Cupar. Once the service runs, there's not a vast increase in operational costs to send it to St Andrews instead of Dundee, and it is quite arguable that the loss of Leuchars and Dundee passengers would be more than counterbalanced by the increase in St Andrews ones, even discounting the current transfer numbers at Leuchars.
How would not building the St Andrews rail link help passengers in the East Neuk? To me, the combination of the Leven and St Andrews reopenings would be extremely positive for travel opportunities in the East Neuk, as the Stagecoach 95 service would then connect to the railway at both ends. Instead of requiring two buses to get to the railway, you would only need one. Remember that the St Andrews station would be co-located with the bus station so there would be pretty optimal interchange between rail and bus.
The Dundee service may well have an equivalent journey time to the bus but this is a dependable journey time not affected by traffic during peak times. It's peak journey times which really matter as these shape commuting patterns, and unless there is to be significant road construction it looks rather unlikely that bus times will have any room for improvement. The Dundee service wouldn't justify the line on its own, but since the infrastructure would be there anyway it only needs to justify its own marginal extra running costs. Transport Scotland are focussing on stopping services in Tayside and the North East of Scotland and the Dundee stopper could easily run through Dundee into Angus and possibly beyond.
overthewater
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 8,166
Stagecoach would not be happy, I doubt there would allow major realignment of the area. It should be pointed there is a pace of land which is earmarked for stagecoach to have first dibs.
I still don't get why Tata steel are poking its nose in around St Andrews, the bus jounrey times even at Peak times are the same around 28mins between Dundee and St Andrews, so again that mute point. Also there is already a North East Fife semi-fast trains its called the Dundee train
For the people of the East Neuk, I suggest you test the waters with the Levenmouth track, since it's already in place, there did run a peak time bus for people to part of east Neuk to Marchich station, it run empty...
Leven is the better of the to ideas, part of the track is already in use for the coal mine. There would be mix of passenger and freight traffic, which includes Diageo and methil docks which included the wind turbines.
To spend a £100m is not a good business case, especially for such short piece of track, with no benafit for freight etc.
I still don't get why Tata steel are poking its nose in around St Andrews, the bus jounrey times even at Peak times are the same around 28mins between Dundee and St Andrews, so again that mute point. Also there is already a North East Fife semi-fast trains its called the Dundee train
For the people of the East Neuk, I suggest you test the waters with the Levenmouth track, since it's already in place, there did run a peak time bus for people to part of east Neuk to Marchich station, it run empty...
Leven is the better of the to ideas, part of the track is already in use for the coal mine. There would be mix of passenger and freight traffic, which includes Diageo and methil docks which included the wind turbines.
To spend a £100m is not a good business case, especially for such short piece of track, with no benafit for freight etc.
It was essentially a marketing exercise for their new algorithmic route-selection tool, AFAIK.
overthewater
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 8,166
Then make them pay for it then. I see no reason why there can;t use levenmouth route which is already there.
Because Levenmouth is far more likely to actually happen, which means there's a far higher chance of getting a paying customer for their route decision tooling. The entire advantage of using St Andrews is that it was, especially when the report was done, highly unlikely to happen soon and therefore they weren't going to miss out on paid work by doing it for free.
47271
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2015
- Messages
- 2,983
At the risk of repeating myself, let the town's not insubstantial commercial interests take the initiative and see to it that even a proportion of the capital costs of a railway are raised and can be repaid. If they can find £50m of the stated £100m total cost then government may be in a stronger position to fund the project.
We're not seeing this, so it has to take its place far down the queue on the basis of zero regeneration need.
We're not seeing this, so it has to take its place far down the queue on the basis of zero regeneration need.
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,224
Compulsory purchase is a wonderful thing. If the government wants to build the line, then it shall be built. Stagecoach's commercial interests aren't enough to stop a CPO going ahead.
I still don't get why Tata steel are poking its nose in around St Andrews, the bus jounrey times even at Peak times are the same around 28mins between Dundee and St Andrews, so again that mute point. Also there is already a North East Fife semi-fast trains its called the Dundee train
I know there's a Dundee train already. I have used it many times. In the long term a second service an hour wouldn't go amiss, and it would be this second service which could run to St Andrews.
The Leven route is clearly closer to being reopened. A test-the-waters passenger service cannot be run along it even if the track is in place due to modern minimum standards for railway operations and infrastructure. Much of the case for the Leven route is that a bus service can't deliver the same benefits.
I'm not suggesting at all that a St Andrews reopening would happen ahead of Leven. As I continue to mention, there is a Fife rail transformation on the horizon which provides an excellent opportunity to consider the Leven and St Andrews reopenings. Once the mainline works have been completed adding in these branchlines will be much, much easier than it is today. The junction works at Thornton could provide a full-blown passenger-ready connection onto a reversing stub until the Leven branch is rebuilt, just like how the Borders Railway was done. The future St Andrews service could terminate short or just not run at all.
Again, assuming that Tata Steel are competent, then the likelihood is that the St Andrews line would cover its operational costs. That fact alone will make it hard for the scheme to have a low BCR. There are plenty of schemes about which have low BCRs because they involve so much ongoing subsidy. If the St Andrews route could pay for itself, then it's within the realms of possibility that by the time it's built, it would actually reduce overall Scottish Government subsidy of the ScotRail network. Schemes which reduce subsidy are ones which go ahead - if the subsidy reduction is more than the effective cost of borrowing the money or not using it for another scheme, then not building it would be the financially imprudent option.
It would be grossly unfair to expect the people of St Andrews alone to cough up money for the route. The people who should pay are the ones who benefit, but there would be lots of people to benefit from the line. St Andrews itself would benefit quite a bit but so would the whole of Fife and Tayside, as well as Edinburgh and indeed Scotland and the UK as a whole. A far better way of funding it would be to capture the uplift in tax revenues it would cause, which is basically what the City Deal framework sets out to do. Of course, the reason it's not included in the current City Deal framework for Edinburgh and eastern Scotland is that it's not yet ready to be done. Leven might be doable by tweaking the current Fife Circle timetable but St Andrews would almost certainly depend upon projects which will not even be built until CP8.
overthewater
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 8,166
Compulsory purchase has already taken place and is emarked for Stagecoach, thus to then rip it up might just cause legal issues. Anyways It should be noted Halbeath Park n ride is now been full for the past two days mainly because of the Highland Show, There is hardly any room now for any new users to use a train if either station was to be built, ie to complement the existing site or as a bolt on to the new Halbeath By Pass.
I do believe, (I fully support the reopening) the Leven line will get open and improved while the other basic mainline works are taken place ie All in one job.
I do believe, (I fully support the reopening) the Leven line will get open and improved while the other basic mainline works are taken place ie All in one job.
St Andrews line is meh. There can't use the above argument since the bus service does deliver the same benefit plus MORE.
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,224
Remember that this new line would be a CP8 (2029-34) project. It exists only as a long-term strategic idea in the minds of Transport Scotland and Network Rail. I think NR/TS would only be pushed to doing something early if someone suggested building something that would make it impossible or very expensive to add in the line later on. In that event, they would try to draw up the scheme into a form where the land can be properly safeguarded, and any other development designed around it as required. Until then, simple enhancements of park and ride locations won't cause a problem.
In any case, please do remember that Stagecoach don't care about anything other than being able to provide a service that will make them money. If it is found that the line would run right through the middle of their shiny new multistorey car park or something, then they would just insist that they would be compensated to build a replacement before it is demolished. So long as they don't lose out financially, they don't care. No one is going to kick up a fuss about ripping up a car park or bus station if it means a better one will be built instead alongside a new railway line.
As an example, HS2 Ltd have now changed the plans for Leeds New Lane station so that it'll require the demolition of ASDA House. Do ASDA care? Absolutely not. They'll be compensated and will sort out a replacement headquarters before the bulldozers move in.
Remember, the Dundee shuttle service would be provided basically for free in terms of infrastructure. The bus would not compete against rail for Edinburgh travel, which is what justifies the scheme. The only cost is that of running the trains, which might not even be as high as expected depending on the sorts of services which run east of Dundee. If a stopper would have to go and wait in the sidings west of Dundee for a while for its return path, then sending it instead over the Tay Bridge and across to St Andrews would involve fairly minimal extra cost. It might only need one or two extra trains and crews, while then providing a service which the bus is currently not so able to do.
Not sure if this is a real justification for reinstating the line, but I guess the story keeps the campaign in the news.
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/new...ats-strengthen-case-for-st-andrews-rail-link/
Campaigners say rail usage stats in Courier Country strengthen case for St Andrews rail link
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/new...ats-strengthen-case-for-st-andrews-rail-link/
Campaigners say rail usage stats in Courier Country strengthen case for St Andrews rail link
47271
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2015
- Messages
- 2,983
The more traffic St Andrews generates at Leuchars surely it evidences that the town is able to start to raise its own funds for a rail link. We hear a lot about how great the line would be, and I don't disagree, but surely all those brains and all that wealth could come up with something a bit more proactive than this?
I think the big issue is this: where is the service pattern that is (a) feasible and (b) makes the sums add up?
The consensus seems to be that a south-facing chord near Guardbridge offering a direct service to Edinburgh (ie avoiding Leuchars) is the most feasible option. Fine, but where does the additional path through the Fife Circle and over the Forth Bridge come from? Alternatively, you have a chord facing both ways and divert the existing hourly Edinburgh to Dundee/ Arbroath stopper via St Andrews and then northbound via Leuchars to Dundee, but that would double (give or take) journey times from Edinburgh and points south to Dundee and Arbroath (and, as a side effect, make the journey from Aberdeen/Dundee to Edinburgh Gateway a complete non-starter, as it's only those slow trains which stop there).
The second problem is that I suspect (only from frequent observation, I'd be interested to see some statistics) that a lot of the traffic at Leuchars is long-distance via LNER. Is a two-leg train journey (St Andrews to Waverley and Waverley to London) better than bus/ taxi/ car to Leuchars and travel direct? Bear in mind that currently changing at Edinburgh adds 20-30 minutes to the through journey. A direct LNER service to London from St Andrews might have some potential, but is it remotely likely?
The case for northbound services is extremely weak, I would think, since there's now 8 direct buses an hour between St Andrews and Leuchars and Dundee during the day. A train is no faster from Leuchars to Dundee, and the bus provides local links within St Andrews. So if you were reliant on public transport and lived in Bogward, for example, why would you take the bus to the centre of town to wait 20 minutes to catch a train to Leuchars or Dundee when you could stay on the bus and get there directly (and more cheaply)?
I'd love to see the railway return to St Andrews, but I do wonder where the hard numbers are. The old St Andrews railway hung on a shoogly peg for most of its existence, I believe...
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Made more difficult by the likelihood that the Leven branch will have been re-opened before any of this might happen, requiring a path of its own into Edinburgh and reducing the scope to provide one from St Andrews as well.
Altnabreac
Established Member
Looking at St Andrews vs Levenmouth there are 4 obvious differences that show why the Levenmouth reopening is happening and StARlink won't.
12 out of the 18 datazones in St Andrews are amongst the least deprived 10% of all areas of Scotland and none of the other 6 are even in the bottom half.
10 out of 33 datazones in Levenmouth are amongst the most deprived 10% of all areas of Scotland. 18 out of 33 are in the most deprived 20% of all areas of Scotland. Only 3 of the 33 are in the least deprived 50% (as opposed to all 18 of the St Andrews datazones).
- Operational difficulties of finding paths for St Andrews services
- Significantly higher costs of reopening to St Andrews
- Difficulty of finding an acceptable route / station in St Andrews town centre, particularly the interaction with the golf courses
- Lack of social justification / regeneration benefits to St Andrews.
12 out of the 18 datazones in St Andrews are amongst the least deprived 10% of all areas of Scotland and none of the other 6 are even in the bottom half.
10 out of 33 datazones in Levenmouth are amongst the most deprived 10% of all areas of Scotland. 18 out of 33 are in the most deprived 20% of all areas of Scotland. Only 3 of the 33 are in the least deprived 50% (as opposed to all 18 of the St Andrews datazones).
Yes, exactly!
Esker-pades
Established Member
Leven won't require an additional path. Services on that branch will be extensions of existing Fife Circle services.
adrock1976
Established Member
Are you referring to the present services that terminate at Cowdenbeath (via Dunfermline) as a possible extension to Levenmouth?
Esker-pades
Established Member
That, or diverting one of the current Glenrothes via Kirkcaldy services from Kirkcaldy to Levenmouth.
Not sure this is much of an issue, given that consultants have already proposed a route. The old station site and route into it are occupied by a surface level car park and could be returned to use very easily.
Altnabreac
Established Member
The TATA Steel Consultants proposed a route but at present no one has any realistic expectation that the rail link will actually be built. Therefore there is no need for people to speak out against the proposal and potentially cause upset locally.
If StARlink were ever to actually progress to a likely proposal there would need to be a TAWS order or Hybrid Bill and the detailed arguments would start over the route.
The slower southern route from the 90s Scott Wilson report has disadvantages of construction cost and slow alignment as well as creating issues for the University .
However the TATA Steel proposed route involves landtake from Fife Council, the University, Madras Rugby Club, the Golf Courses and runs extremely close to the Old Course Hotel. Frankly attempting to get the Compulsory Purchase Orders on that route approved would be an absolute nightmare! You couldn't pick a bunch of deeper pocketed, conservative organisations to try and annoy if you tried.
tbtc
Veteran Member
The old station site may be feasible on its own (albeit probably not for *long* trains... and
it'd be wholly inadequate to accommodate crowds
when the Open is on, so there'd still be mainly bus connections from Leuchars at such times)......but it's how you get there that's the issue. Given the Old Course hotel, the site of the new school, the golf courses etc... the issue of crossing the Eden... a small town centre station is the simple part (unless you are planning on accommodating more than a Turbostar, in which case it'll get a lot more expensive, of course!).
- Status